The following piece was written by Fr. Joseph Fessio, S.J., founder and editor of Ignatius Press, in response to the breaking story about a 1985 letter written by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger to Bishop John S. Cummins of Oakland.
The so-called "stalled pedophile case", blame for which has been laid at the feet of then-Cardinal Ratzinger, had nothing to do with pedophilia and everything to do with strengthening marriage and the priesthood.
Here's what was happening in 1981 when Bishop Cummins of Oakland first wrote the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith asking that one of the priests from his diocese of Oakland, be dispensed from his promise of celibacy.
Well first, what was not happening. The letter came a week before Cardinal Ratzinger had even assumed his duties as Prefect of that congregation. This is a very important office of the Roman curia. It handles a variety of cases worldwide, mostly having to do with defending and promoting doctrinal integrity in the Church. There's a lot of work to do, and it takes time for someone to become fully engaged in its activities.
But much more pertinently here: By 1980 the effects of the sexual revolution on marriage and the priesthood had been devastating. In 1965 there had been 59 marriage annulments granted by Rome to American couples. By 2002, there were over 50,000 annulments per year in the U.S. alone. Hundreds, perhaps thousands of priests were asking for dispensation from their promise of celibacy in order to be able to marry.
The Catholic Church holds the marriage vows to be indissoluble. Even an annulment, contrary to a widespread misconception, does not dissolve those vows. It is a declaration that because of some impediment, there never was a valid marriage in the first place.
Priestly ordination is also "indissoluble", in the sense that a validly ordained priest never ceases to be a priest.
And here's the rub. It was literally scandalous in the Church that priests, who had been prepared for eight to ten years for their ordination (which would be permanent, irreversible) and their promise of celibacy (which also has the character of a solemn promise before God), were, in the 1970s, being so easily dispensed from their promise of celibacy.
Married Catholics said to themselves: If a priest, who is so well prepared for his commitment, can so easily be dispensed from it so that he can marry, why can't we be dispensed from our commitment so that we can remarry?
When John Paul II was elevated to the papacy in the Fall of 1978, he immediately changed the policy on priestly dispensations. I don't have the exact dates and numbers at hand, but I remember at the time that many of us were amazed that the hundreds of dispensations per year (and it may have been thousands) under John Paul II's predecessor, Paul VI, suddenly were reduced to almost zero. It was almost impossible to get a dispensation in 1980.
What was John Paul's intent? To restore the integrity of the priesthood and of marriage. These commitments are permanent. A priest may be removed from ministry, but he will not be given a dispensation to marry. Priests are to be made to take their commitments with utmost seriousness. They will be an example to married couples to take theirs seriously also. When a priest makes a promise of celibacy, it's forever; when a couple make vows of marriage, it's forever.
This is the decisive context of Cardinal Ratzinger's letter to Bishop Cummins. It is not a smoking gun. It did not mean that Ratzinger was not taking the priest's sins seriously. (He called the accusations "very serious" [gravis momenti].) It meant that he, following the policy of John Paul II, was taking the priesthood and its commitments very seriously.
And again, this entire affair had nothing to do with preventing further abuse by this priest. That had already been done, or should have been done, by the local bishop.
A final, minor but significant point of translation. The translation being used by the media of an important part of Ratzinger's letter is: "your Excellency must not fail to provide the petitioner with as much paternal care as possible". This has been rightly interpreted by some to mean that Ratzinger was saying that the bishop should keep a watchful eye on the priest. The original Latin makes that even clearer: "paterna...cura sequi" which means "to follow with paternal care". We get the word "persecute" from the Latin "per-sequi". "Sequi" is much stronger then "provide".
There is a completely mistaken first premise underlying all this criticism.The premise is that "defrocking" has anything to do with protecting victims and preventing further abuse.
First, the media needs to know that according to Catholic teaching, Holy Orders is a sacrament which leaves an "indelible mark"; in layman's terms, once ordained a priest, a man is always a priest. The reason the word "dispensation" is used in the correspondence is that that is what happens technically: the priest is dispensed from his obligation of celibacy. In a sense, this works in the opposite direction from protection: a restraint is being removed.
Further, as if to prove this point, the priest in question continued to abuse children after he was "defrocked" and had married. QED.
Secondly, nothing at all prevents a bishop from: removing a priest from all ministry; removing his faculties; reporting him to civil authorities. There is no need even to inform Rome about this. The only way (until 2001 or in cases of abuse of Confession) that it need get to Rome is if the priest appeals the bishop's actions.
Thirdly, why was the CDF involved anyway? That was not the congregation that handles abuse cases, except where abuse of Confession has played a role. I believe the CDF was involved in cases of dispensation from celibacy. (Though you would think that should be under the Congregation for Priests.) But, again, dispensation has nothing to do with preventing further abuse. It may appease the sense of justice on the part of victims. But at the same time, It normally takes eight to ten years to become a priest. It's not a club one joins. It is a very serious thing to dispense a priest from celibacy, and there needs to be a careful process to protect innocent priests.
Fourthly, there are definitely cases of priests who have been falsely accused. Especially the American media ought to be sensitive to the principle that a man is innocent until proven guilty. Civil law requires that to be done in a court of law. A bishop can, and in many cases, should take action against a priest before there is any canonical trial.
Finally, let's compare this to the difference between a criminal and a civil trial. Criminal trials can be expedited, but even then in all but the most grievous cases, a criminal defendant is a free man until convicted. In the case of priests, the "punishment" of removal from ministry can be applied immediately by a bishop even before there is any canonical trial, which is like a civil trial. How long do civil trials take in this country? I know of trials that have dragged out for more than seven years.
If Ratzinger took part in "stall[ing]" a "pedophile case", the worst one can say is that he wanted care taken in a canonical trial. And, let's not forget, this wasn't "punishment" at all from the priest's point of view. He had "asked" to be dispensed.
The so-called "stalled pedophile case", blame for which has been laid at the feet of then-Cardinal Ratzinger, had nothing to do with pedophilia and everything to do with strengthening marriage and the priesthood.
Here's what was happening in 1981 when Bishop Cummins of Oakland first wrote the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith asking that one of the priests from his diocese of Oakland, be dispensed from his promise of celibacy.
Well first, what was not happening. The letter came a week before Cardinal Ratzinger had even assumed his duties as Prefect of that congregation. This is a very important office of the Roman curia. It handles a variety of cases worldwide, mostly having to do with defending and promoting doctrinal integrity in the Church. There's a lot of work to do, and it takes time for someone to become fully engaged in its activities.
But much more pertinently here: By 1980 the effects of the sexual revolution on marriage and the priesthood had been devastating. In 1965 there had been 59 marriage annulments granted by Rome to American couples. By 2002, there were over 50,000 annulments per year in the U.S. alone. Hundreds, perhaps thousands of priests were asking for dispensation from their promise of celibacy in order to be able to marry.
The Catholic Church holds the marriage vows to be indissoluble. Even an annulment, contrary to a widespread misconception, does not dissolve those vows. It is a declaration that because of some impediment, there never was a valid marriage in the first place.
Priestly ordination is also "indissoluble", in the sense that a validly ordained priest never ceases to be a priest.
And here's the rub. It was literally scandalous in the Church that priests, who had been prepared for eight to ten years for their ordination (which would be permanent, irreversible) and their promise of celibacy (which also has the character of a solemn promise before God), were, in the 1970s, being so easily dispensed from their promise of celibacy.
Married Catholics said to themselves: If a priest, who is so well prepared for his commitment, can so easily be dispensed from it so that he can marry, why can't we be dispensed from our commitment so that we can remarry?
When John Paul II was elevated to the papacy in the Fall of 1978, he immediately changed the policy on priestly dispensations. I don't have the exact dates and numbers at hand, but I remember at the time that many of us were amazed that the hundreds of dispensations per year (and it may have been thousands) under John Paul II's predecessor, Paul VI, suddenly were reduced to almost zero. It was almost impossible to get a dispensation in 1980.
What was John Paul's intent? To restore the integrity of the priesthood and of marriage. These commitments are permanent. A priest may be removed from ministry, but he will not be given a dispensation to marry. Priests are to be made to take their commitments with utmost seriousness. They will be an example to married couples to take theirs seriously also. When a priest makes a promise of celibacy, it's forever; when a couple make vows of marriage, it's forever.
This is the decisive context of Cardinal Ratzinger's letter to Bishop Cummins. It is not a smoking gun. It did not mean that Ratzinger was not taking the priest's sins seriously. (He called the accusations "very serious" [gravis momenti].) It meant that he, following the policy of John Paul II, was taking the priesthood and its commitments very seriously.
And again, this entire affair had nothing to do with preventing further abuse by this priest. That had already been done, or should have been done, by the local bishop.
A final, minor but significant point of translation. The translation being used by the media of an important part of Ratzinger's letter is: "your Excellency must not fail to provide the petitioner with as much paternal care as possible". This has been rightly interpreted by some to mean that Ratzinger was saying that the bishop should keep a watchful eye on the priest. The original Latin makes that even clearer: "paterna...cura sequi" which means "to follow with paternal care". We get the word "persecute" from the Latin "per-sequi". "Sequi" is much stronger then "provide".
There is a completely mistaken first premise underlying all this criticism.The premise is that "defrocking" has anything to do with protecting victims and preventing further abuse.
First, the media needs to know that according to Catholic teaching, Holy Orders is a sacrament which leaves an "indelible mark"; in layman's terms, once ordained a priest, a man is always a priest. The reason the word "dispensation" is used in the correspondence is that that is what happens technically: the priest is dispensed from his obligation of celibacy. In a sense, this works in the opposite direction from protection: a restraint is being removed.
Further, as if to prove this point, the priest in question continued to abuse children after he was "defrocked" and had married. QED.
Secondly, nothing at all prevents a bishop from: removing a priest from all ministry; removing his faculties; reporting him to civil authorities. There is no need even to inform Rome about this. The only way (until 2001 or in cases of abuse of Confession) that it need get to Rome is if the priest appeals the bishop's actions.
Thirdly, why was the CDF involved anyway? That was not the congregation that handles abuse cases, except where abuse of Confession has played a role. I believe the CDF was involved in cases of dispensation from celibacy. (Though you would think that should be under the Congregation for Priests.) But, again, dispensation has nothing to do with preventing further abuse. It may appease the sense of justice on the part of victims. But at the same time, It normally takes eight to ten years to become a priest. It's not a club one joins. It is a very serious thing to dispense a priest from celibacy, and there needs to be a careful process to protect innocent priests.
Fourthly, there are definitely cases of priests who have been falsely accused. Especially the American media ought to be sensitive to the principle that a man is innocent until proven guilty. Civil law requires that to be done in a court of law. A bishop can, and in many cases, should take action against a priest before there is any canonical trial.
Finally, let's compare this to the difference between a criminal and a civil trial. Criminal trials can be expedited, but even then in all but the most grievous cases, a criminal defendant is a free man until convicted. In the case of priests, the "punishment" of removal from ministry can be applied immediately by a bishop even before there is any canonical trial, which is like a civil trial. How long do civil trials take in this country? I know of trials that have dragged out for more than seven years.
If Ratzinger took part in "stall[ing]" a "pedophile case", the worst one can say is that he wanted care taken in a canonical trial. And, let's not forget, this wasn't "punishment" at all from the priest's point of view. He had "asked" to be dispensed.
Amen! Clarity at last! Fr Fessio rocks.
Posted by: Salome | Friday, April 09, 2010 at 11:43 PM
Thank you for this clear explanation.
Posted by: Joe H | Saturday, April 10, 2010 at 02:00 AM
I didn't realize he went on to marry.
I think the hardest to comprehend or accept now is that if a Bishop had known of the abuse, the abuser should have been removed completely. The confusion, for me at least, is that if Rome or any one else had known, that although it wasn't under their authority at the time to remove them for that reason (abuse of minor), strong suggestions or commands to remove them completely should have come.
Of course, it wasn't till recently that I learned that the cases are sent to Rome (2001).
And that would answer that concern.
Posted by: Mrs. O | Saturday, April 10, 2010 at 06:09 AM
The question is, who is feeding the media all these garbage? I smell an inside job. Someone who doesn't want the Holy Father and wants him gone!
Posted by: MJ | Saturday, April 10, 2010 at 07:02 AM
I agree with everything here, but I urge Fr. Fessio to stop offering defenses. It just won't help. It looks . . . defensive.
Posted by: Lasorda | Saturday, April 10, 2010 at 07:29 AM
To me; it is not a defense, it is first and foremost the Truth. Something that the liberal bent press has a hard time understanding! They sell papers; we reflect truth!
Posted by: BRUNO | Saturday, April 10, 2010 at 08:33 AM
When dealing with something as offensive as these "news stories," one needs to be defensive, in the proper sense of defending those being unfairly attacked and revealing the truth of the matter. As all of my coaches in various sports told me over the years: "Defense wins championships." The history of the Church, going back to St. Peter and St. Paul, is filled with examples of defending the Gospel, the Church, and Catholic doctrine. I'm not sure why we should stop now.
Posted by: Carl E. Olson | Saturday, April 10, 2010 at 08:51 AM
Thank you so much for posting this.
I am in the process of e-mailing a link to it to as many news media outlets that continue to post this as a "top story" on their sites. I hope others do the same.
Keep up the good work!
Posted by: Greg | Saturday, April 10, 2010 at 09:24 AM
Mrs. O writes:
"I think the hardest to comprehend or accept now is that if a Bishop had known of the abuse, the abuser should have been removed completely."
The problem, as it is in every area in which authority is exercised, is what counts as "knowing." If, for example, you were a male high school teacher and two female students went to the principal and accused you of hitting on them, does that count as the principal "knowing." If so, then accusations count as knowledge. But if that's the case, then due process is a detriment to "justice."
Interestingly enough, this priest was convicted by prosecutors in the Bay Area, and given probation (and thus no prison time). This was the late 1970s and the BAY AREA. You'd think the reporter--if he had just half a wit--would know that at that time in the sexual revolution, and especially in the Bay Area, the idea of minors and adults having sex was avant garde and hip, e.g., Roman Polanski. (Who can forget Time Magazine's 1980 piece on the pro-incest lobby: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,923966-1,00.html Notice the names of prominent individuals associated with "respected" organizations). Perhaps the reporter, if he was really interested in justice, would have inquired as to why the government went so easy on this fellow. Is it because the government was constrained by laws that did not take adult-minor sex that seriously, or that the cultural climate at the time was not particularly troubled about such liaisons? I remember the late 1970s. (Graduated from high school in 1978). This was the age of Pretty Baby and "Pedophile Chic." If anything, the cultural climate in which this priest found himself was welcoming and non-judgmental. It would behoove the reporter--again, if he really cared about justice--to bring to his readers' attention that the late 1970s was the world in which pedophile enthusiasts like Harry Hay were considered "heroes" in the gay rights movements, just as Kevin Jennings (Obama's safe-school czar) says of him today. What would happen if Pope Benedict had appointed someone who made comments like Jennings' to any position of authority in the Church? The press would go nuclear and rightfully so. What would happen if Pope Benedict had unilaterally removed as priests Drinin, Curran, McBrien, etc.? He would be accused of creating an ecclesiastical version of "Bush's Gitmo." So, always remember this: the purpose of trashing the Pope by many in the media (though certainly not all) is not to protect children. The purpose is to make sure that future generations of children are not shaped by the Church's teachings on the sanctity of life and human sexuality. For if they really cared about children--unborn and born alike--they would be just as angry about Obama, Jennings, and abortion as they would be about wicked priests. But wicked priests serve the purpose of making the world safe for Obama, Jennings and abortion. Just because you hate a Church that has members that hurt children does not mean that you are really interested in protecting those children.
Posted by: Francis Beckwith | Saturday, April 10, 2010 at 09:38 AM
Fr. Fessio: "Secondly, nothing at all prevents a bishop from: removing a priest from all ministry; removing his faculties; reporting him to civil authorities. There is no need even to inform Rome about this."
Too bad this obvious truth was more honored in the breach than the observance! Let's get serious about protecting the flock. A shepherd's crook is supposed to be used against predators.
Posted by: MarcoPo | Saturday, April 10, 2010 at 10:03 AM
Thank you, Fr. Fessio, for supplying this much-needed context. I have a story up of my own, in which I plan to add a link to this article.
http://subcreators.com/blog/2010/04/10/once-more-unto-the-breach/
Posted by: Lori Pieper | Saturday, April 10, 2010 at 11:46 AM
Thank you Father Fessio for letting the truth be known. The defamation of Pope Benedict by the NYT continues relentlessly. Today (Saturday April 10) the NYT prints a rehash of the same false story about this perverted priest in their front page, top left column.
For progressives the Church has been the enemy for the longest time. Think French Revolution. The particular problem they have with with Pope Benedict XVI is that he has written down his teachings in dozens of books which will long survive him. Benedict is a defender of Catholic Tradition. One might want to read his recent "Jesus of Nazareth" about the historical reality of Jesus. If you are interested in Faith and Reason read Ratzinger's "In the Beginning" on how Evolution can be reconciled with the need of a redeemer that is the Son of the Creator. If you are a Traditional Catholic you might want to read Ratzinger's "The Spirit of the Liturgy" on how the Mass was developed over two millenia and why its continuity with tradition should be defended. If you want to find out what holiness is like, one can read Benedict's 2007 Encyclical Spe Salvi (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20071130_spe-salvi_en.html).
Importantly, Benedict XVI lifted the prohibition on the traditional Latin Mass established by Vatican II. While being reintroduced too slowly, the coexistence of the Latin form of the Mass with the politically correct new ordinary mass will strengthen the Catholic Church. I had the wondeful opportunity of attending the entire Extraordinary Easter Trivuum here in the Los Angeles Archdiose (!). On Good Friday it included the prayer for the conversion of the Chosen Tribe.
The Vatican represents one of the last defenses against the complete secularization of Western Civilization. For this and other reasons, godless Marxists feel obligated to destroy Benedict XVI personally. Together with him they will bring down Pope John Paul II during whose pontificate these cases first surfaced.
The Catholic Church has lasted 2000 years and these powerful weaklings will not be able to destroy it.
Thank you Fr. Fessio for Ignatius Press receiving your catalogues is always a welcome event at our home. You are the new Abbe Migne (1800-1875), the most famous editor of Catholic literature.
Posted by: MotuProprio | Saturday, April 10, 2010 at 03:17 PM
Aside from the Oakland priest matter, Fr. Fessio leaves me wondering how Pope John Paul II could stop laicizations for priests dramatically and yet not stop annulments as to their high rates....if the two are intertwined in terms of scandal.
Perhaps he felt helpless realistically that to inject himself into a local and evidentiary based process (annulments) wherein each case depends on vast detailed evidence and the interpretation of it and depends on behavioural truths brought out by that evidence whereas laicization does not except in cases wherein immaturity of decision was a factor pled by a priest. In such laicization cases based on deficient motivation at the outset, I hope those cases were not simply summarily ignored since they are based on truth as it happened back then within the vower just like in annulments.
Posted by: bill bannon | Saturday, April 10, 2010 at 07:18 PM
I enjoyed Fr. Fessio's comments in a Margaret Warner interview where Fessio and Fr. James Martin discussed the related topics of the church's teachings on human sexuality and the admission of men to the seminary and priesthood. While Fr. Martin's comments of late have been helpful on being careful of just blaming the media, Fr. Fessio's comments were much more commensurate with my understanding of Catholic teaching on these subjects in that 2005 interview.
Moral relativism on Catholic teachings have in fact invaded the Church and are much at the root of the present pedofilia scandals and failure to act by some.
The theological understandings and teachings of the Sacramental nature of Holy Orders are beautiful. However, the Church cannot exempt itself from common sense and mandated reporting statues and negligence in a civil society.
The issues are still controlling as to Catholic canonical law and would not prevent the shameful and sinful person volutanrily leaving the Church and living his life in the manner in which he wishes to( he certainly was until that point). He could not then marry within the church. He will not be dispensed from his celibacy vows from the Church's teachings and authority and perspective.
There are grave theological and philosphical issues at risk for Catholicism but at what risk will they be played out or not expedited? Civil litigators and journalists are pushing the timeline up and forcing local Bishops and Rome to act in accordance with canonical laws that were on the books but were not used due to 1. sympathetic deviants on one hand and 2. those who wished to protect the church from scandal,etc.
Bishops denying faculties. Severe but necessary.
Defrocking from Rome. More severe certainly from Catholic theology but not from the victims or their families who are Catholics. The Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath.
All potential victims would be put on notice that this guy is no longer a priest. He is not "sponsored" by the Church any longer. The Bishops locally did not strip these guys of their faculties from Boston to Ireland. Even when Milwaukee or Oakland unsually reached out to Rome there was a delayed answer in both cases. Mercy for Murphy but not for the kids.
This cannot hold the scrutiny of common sense.
Sacramental authority cannot absolve the Church of negligence in a secular action. I am a defender of the Church daily professionally and personally.
However,the arguments being offered sink me further each time in my faith.
It is as Father Fessio states--it is the Sacrament of Holy Orders that the folks in the pew revere and respect from Baptising their children to First Holy Communion for our little ones to the daily Eucharist and frequent confessions. The sacredness of this is not lost on the people. Nor on the vast majority of the priests and religious.
The Church risks having it both ways--benefitting from yet blaming the folks afterwards for clericalism risks as in Ireland or stating that Holy Orders are so special that such vileness and evil could not ipso facto defrock a man from the priesthood..
And if so the marching orders from Rome would have to be generally as guideliness and specifically in such cases that their faculties would have to be suspended indefintely and they would be invited to confession and penance. How can such Holy Orders be so corrupted?
This logic is on a crash course with itself.
Marriage and Holy orders elevated and revered and calling for continual raising of the bar rather than the lower common denominator. I am all for it and act and teach accordingly. But within reason?
If there are no limits then Holy Orders and Marriage are denigrated in some cases.
The Church was at times negligent locally and from the Vatican's own words and nonactions in some of these cases from a simple law enforcement or legal background. The poor defensive arguments or the theological explanations without context and taking pains to see where both--canonical and common sense justice and mercy could have been employed are not helping the cause.
The sexual abusers were protected by the moral relativism that has invaded the church and the homosexual deviants amidst the clergy and hierarchy on one hand who looked the other way or particpated in such or similar behavior themselves at one time or another.
And now on the other hand those who we thought would police this sort of vile looked the other way from the Geoghan to Murphy to Maciel cases and beyond including gaslighting the victims.
The pedofiles were in effect protected by the left and the right, the heterodox and the orthodox albeit with different motives.
Clericalism in different colors
Fr Fessio was compelling vs Martin in 2005 and while he is a fine teacher on the issues he writes about here--it is evading the pink elephant in the room.
It is a question of Authority.
Where is the new John Newman? We need one now.
Posted by: mark | Sunday, April 11, 2010 at 02:02 AM
If you want to volunteer with kids in a parish or catholic school in California, you have to be fingerprinted and take a course about abuse and how to recognize it. The main thing is to never be alone a child. I do this because a small percentage of priests allowed satan to control their lives and the church organization acted slowly. Lay people need to get involved in their parish. It is the church of Jesus Christ not the church of father so-in-so. Don't let the press weaken your faith. Sin is pervasive throughout our society. How much Jesus suffers from the actions of these few priests and all sinners.
Posted by: lisamom | Sunday, April 11, 2010 at 08:06 AM
How come there is not a clamoring to line civil authorities up against the wall regarding their failures to protect children from this man? I understand that he received probation and court documents related to his crimes were destroyed as a condition of this light sentence.
I wish the press would remember there is no such thing as church jail. The final duty of protecting the public from criminal is with the state.
Posted by: Paula | Sunday, April 11, 2010 at 09:43 AM
"Further, as if to prove this point, the priest in question continued to abuse children after he was "defrocked" and had married". QED.
What is even more sad, that if you take the "press' " logic about defrocking priests as an essential element to stopping abuse, then spouses of abusers should divorce them to help prevent child abuse.
Posted by: mel | Sunday, April 11, 2010 at 06:08 PM
Your defense seems premised on the idea that canon law is a special preserve. You may believe this. Others may believe this. But it is sheer folly for you to pretend surprise that others are not ready to extend that church law preeminence in dealing with cases that are so important societally. You are not extending even the basic courtesy, nay even the basic decency to other people's views. I understand that you are trying to defend what and whom you feel is sacred at this point, but it simply makes no sense. And it sounds completely anti-social, though I assume you don't mean it that way.
Posted by: Peter Paul Fuchs | Sunday, April 11, 2010 at 09:32 PM
Father,
At that point in history, the CDF processed cases of voluntary laicization. That is why it was there. Of course, it was the Pope himself who grants the dispensation (something the author of the AP story did not realize).
Posted by: Dan | Monday, April 12, 2010 at 06:48 AM
This does not clarify anything I am sorry to say. It perhaps clouded the issue. The real question for me would at a minimum be the gradation of interest, certainly it would seem to me that accusations themselves cannot always be thoroughly scrutinized but accusations of sexual offenses involving a minor should have then as they do now been given the highest priority. In my estimation that is what seems to have been lacking. Other than that I believe it was handle as best as could be at the time.
Posted by: David | Monday, April 12, 2010 at 04:28 PM
This man had been reported to civil authorities. He had been charged with a crime, and was put on probation, and then when he ended his probation, the record was suppressed.
This really points out that the flaws in treating sexual abuse of minors too lightly was endemic in society and not limited to the Catholic Church.
Posted by: John Pack Lambert | Wednesday, April 14, 2010 at 08:38 PM
This article clears up the media's perspective (agenda?) on this matter. Is there some way to target this story to the mainstream media - even if initially to those that are predisposed toward viewing this as a postiive addition to the press on this matter. If so, it might eventually even find its way to being published or followed up by the biased mainstream media.
Posted by: Deacon Jim | Thursday, April 15, 2010 at 07:51 AM
"Your defense seems premised on the idea that canon law is a special preserve."
It is. The argument made by Archbishop Thomas Becket to Henry II of England nearly a thousand years ago is the same today. In matters regarding it's property and personnel, if you will, the Church is not subject to nor will it be dictated to by civil authority. This is not a question of personal views or public perceptions. It is a matter of who has authority in and over Christ's Church.
Posted by: Brian J. Schuettler | Thursday, April 15, 2010 at 09:13 AM
Thank you, Father Fessio, for the clarification.
I certainly would not defrock a priest, and send him into society at large. I recommend the old Medieval solution: send the offender under obedience to an isolated cloistered monastery, for penance the rest of his life.
Posted by: Alicia de Colombí-Monguió | Sunday, May 02, 2010 at 09:13 PM